Author
Topic: 200mm F2 IS OR 135mm F2 (Read 15806 times)

sevki

I have the 5D mark III and 85mm f1.2 for taking portraits. I am so happy with it but it has slow focus and almost impossible to use for moving objects! so i dediced to but another lens which has fast AF, good for portraits and has amazing bokeh! so i found 2 lenses;

200mm F2 IS and 135mm F2

135 is very fast, not so heavy, good price (about 1000$), very good optic quality

I own both and there is no comparison. The 200 f/2 will blow you away with the images it produces and it will almost never miss a shot whereas the 135 can produce great images but it can not even come close to being able to lock in focus like the 200 can. Low light photography is where the 200 f/2 really shines. My 135 struggles in low light but the 200 f/2 thrives in it. I am usually shooting it in areas where I need ISO 8000+ on a 1DX and it never hunts for focus.

If size and money are not an issue then the 200 f/2 is the way to go. I will use my 135 when I need to be more discrete but usually I just use the big white and deal with the comments about the lens.

Also note that on a full frame camera, the 200mm is great for portraits in most situations (including indoors). I shoot head shots as well as full length with no issues. Here are two images straight out of the camera (no editing - proofs high school senior) showing what the 200 can do in good light and low light.

Unless you really know where you are going with your portraiture, or could post an example or two of where you are now, it makes much more sense to get the 135mm and see where that takes you.

What you told me is really what I think of too! but tell me if I am not true! isnt it like that? zoom lenses makes distortion! isnt it all about distortion to make object flatter and fatter? in tests there is almost no distortion of 200mm! do you say it will make the same effect too ?

Many great portrait shooters like Stephen Eastwood use 200mm or longer for portraits depending on the model. Shooting with anything lower can also recede the hair line and distort the eyes but it really is up to the photographer to pick the correct lens for the model you are shooting and to use the lens correctly (angles matter). Personally I prefer the longer focal length to the shorter ones and can use more acute angles when using longer lenses without the fear of distorting their face, arms or legs like a shorter focal length might.

And if money is an object and you like that length, you might give the 200L non-IS a close look. IQ wise, it's basically the long end of the 70-200L IS2 but with better bokeh.

Plus it's compact, light, black, has as good or better AF. Also pairs with the Canon 1.4x TC as well as the 70-200 does. And it's inexpensive.

IMO, about the only dowwnside is that 200 and longer is a bear to shoot without IS, tripod, whatever unless its light enough to take the shutter speed way up.

Test shot of bird on a wire, ~70% crop:

[edit] Shot raw, no contrast, color sat, local contrast added in post. Only moderate sharpening and "hdr" added to bring out a bit more detail in the shadows and tame highlights. So hopefully this is a decent representation of what to expect from this lens.

The 200 f/2 is the portrait lens. The 135L is the closest thing to it for budget users.

I think you will find that the design brief for the 200 f2 was primarily lowlight and shorter long focal length sports, that it is used very effectively for portraits by some is a complimentary use for it. Certainly if you want to see ten or fifteen 200 f2's together just go to any ATP World Tour event. Canon made the 85 1.2 as a pure no holds barred portrait lens and considered AF of secondary importance to the "look" it gives.

I remember for years the sample images for the 300 f2.8 IS are head shots portraits, though nobody would doubt that portrait shooters are not the primary market for that lens! Though there are a few that use it, for instance I do, but primarily because I have one and don't need the 200 f2.

EDIT: Obviously the 200 f2.8 is the budget version of the 200 f2.

Used the 85L II, Found it kinda meh when I already have the 135L. The 200/2 is the best portrait lens canon makes IMO, its just expensive and heavy. Sure it can be used for sports as well.

The 200/2.8 is a lens I've never been particularly fond of when the 70-200LII does the same thing. I used the 200/2 at a buddys house for about an hour, and instantly knew it was in a league of its own.

The 200/2.8 is a lens I've never been particularly fond of when the 70-200LII does the same thing.

I suppose the things to like about the 200L 2.8 are that you can buy a mint one for well under $500 and its tiny physical size, comparatively speaking.

I'd agree its not a lens to make you drool any more than the 70-200 IS2 is, but imo it is exceptional bang for the buck when the next step up IQ wise @200 is not the $2K 70-200 IS2, it is the $6.5K 200L 2.

On the up side It is sharp, fast and has amazing IQ and I have YET to get an image out of it with any CA. I use mine primarily mated to a 1Dx (rental) and my 5d3. Like the longer tele's it has all the focus preset options and goodies.This lens is my goto for ski/snowboard work and I am hoping kayaking this summer as well (esp if I can snag up a 1Dx..Cooked my 7D last season).

Shot with the 200 f/2. ISO 100 f/4 1/640. Bokeh is far better at f/2 but I wanted to see how it shot stopped down on static targets.

I personally would look at this by focal length first. I have the 135 and the 200 2.8L II - which are essentially really the same lens. Both are fabulous for what I use them for. I rarely have used the 200 for portraits per se. Not that it can't be done but I would always for the 135 first when it comes to portraits/headshots.

Obviously the 200L is in a different league for other reasons but I'd need a really good range of applications before I'd go for that - independent of budget.